Archives

Category: Politics

The 1 percent are already ‘In’ and for obvious reasons. Now, what about the 99 percent?

Widespread dissatisfaction among very large numbers of people is manifesting itself in various ways around the world.

We’ve seen it in politics, in regards to the Occupy Wall Street protests, the Scottish referendum, the Arab Spring, Syrian uprising, in the deepening distrust of globalization and free-trade agreements, lower voter turnouts, and most recently, in the Swiss referendum in 2014 to not join the European Union, in the recent Brexit referendum result, and in the potential for ‘Grexit’ from the European Union.

But it wasn’t always that way. In the postwar world, people from all walks of life and in every country ‘pulled together’ towards a common and better future. Sure, the Cold War interrupted that mood. But in the broadest possible context, the Cold War served to sharpen competition and increase the overall flow towards a better civilization.

When the Cold War ended, Earth’s then-population of 6 billion took a collective deep breath and said; “Now we can get somewhere!” — in regards to creating the kind of world anyone would be proud to live in.

But 26 years on, we have fallen massively short of those aspirations. And it’s becoming more apparent and it is grating on people, moreso with each passing year.

Politics: In 2016, the richest 1 percent will own more wealth than the rest of humanity combined. Image courtesy of Oxfam International

Instead of a giant leap forward for the human race, we had trillion dollar wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that were based on falsehood (the U.S. Iraq Study Group said so) a major recession caused by the unethical and perhaps illegal actions of ‘too big to fail’ financial institutions (but only one person has gone to prison) we had democratic voices being dragged away from peaceful and legal #OWS rallies, we have dangerous people trying to re-ignite the Cold War because it used to be good for the military-industrial-complex economy(so why not try that again?) we suddenly have a 1 percent cohort that owns more than HALF of the world’s wealth (by 2030 they will own 76% of the world’s wealth if measures aren’t taken) we have more outsourcing of jobs (and therefore a larger proportion of low-paying jobs) and we have unelected, elitist, bureaucrats in Europe telling the rest of the continent where to go and what to do.

And that isn’t the half of it.

“It is time for the global leaders of modern capitalism, in addition to our politicians, to work to change the system to make it more inclusive, more equitable and more sustainable.

Extreme inequality isn’t just a moral wrong. It undermines economic growth and it threatens the private sector’s bottom line. All those gathering at Davos who want a stable and prosperous world should make tackling inequality a top priority.”

Consequently millions of people are losing faith in and blaming globalization when in fact globalization isn’t the problem.

Twenty-six years after the Cold War has ended, our civilization is so much less than it could be that it boggles the mind.

The 1 percenters and their acolytes can’t understand what all the fuss is about.

And I understand that! Their lives are so far removed from reality that; “Let the peasants eat cake.” doesn’t begin to describe the disconnect they have with the other 7.2 billion people on the planet.

(For the record, none of it was caused by the 1 percent — they are merely the beneficiaries of the trickle-up economy — therefore, we can never blame them for the problems of the 99 percent)

Ongoing troubles with Russia, China, #OWS, the global economy, Brexit, etc. are just the beginning of our problems. Five years out and ten years out, we will look back longingly to the 2010-2016 timeframe where we had these relatively minor problems to contend with!

We need a new global vision, one that is orders of magnitude better than the present mediocre vision, so that 7.2 billion people will say to themselves, “Now this; I can support and work diligently towards.”

The present vision of; ‘Let’s keep making corporations and the 1 percent richer and richer at our expense, getting into conflicts with Russia and China for no reason good enough to justify the risks involved, and unelected and elitist technocrats ruling the Earth (seems to be a growing trend) all so that we can feel grateful to have a low-paying job and a declining middle class?‘

That’s not a vision! That’s the path to economic suicide!

While there won’t be revolutions there is likely to be widespread voter dissatisfaction and a much lower level of ‘buy-in’ to our civilization from everyday citizens. That alone, is enough to cause irreparable damage to our world.

Everyone has a different idea about why the former Soviet Union failed;

Some say it was the sudden drop in oil prices (not really, that was merely the straw that broke the camel’s back) some say it was Western plots (slight attribution there) while some said its fall was due to their failure in Afghanistan (embarrassing, but not Warsaw Pact demolishing by any standard) or by other, unspecified means.

But no, the real reason for the failure of the former Soviet Union was passive defiance by Soviet workers, whose favorite (quietly-spoken) saying was;

“As long as they pretend to pay us, we will pretend to work.”

And that is everything!

Once it became obvious to Soviet workers that the Soviet Union was ‘no longer working’ for their best interests, they employed a sort of ‘passive defiance’ in return for the crass neglect they felt they had endured, which lowered the USSR’s productivity to such an extent that all it took was a few months of low oil prices and some sniping from U.S. politicians for the whole thing to implode.

Now, 26 years after the fall of the Soviet Union, Western workers are beginning to think in terms of ‘passive defiance’ and may soon follow the path of those Soviet workers.

Long story short; There are very real reasons for the growing dissatisfaction and the disconnect between 7.2 billion people on the one hand — and the 1 percent, their acolytes, and the elitist technocrats that serve them, on the other hand.

The grievances of that many people can’t simply be waved away in a ‘Let them eat cake’ kind of way.

We need a grand and new vision, one that is orders of magnitude better than the present non-vision, and one that 7.2 billion people will urgently wish to support.

Globalization was inevitable. Both the positives and negatives of globalization were inevitable. And we’re now moving into a more mature phase of globalization — a phase where common sense must play a larger role.

After all, does it make more sense to import onions from thousands of miles away in Chile or Indonesia for example, or to grow them on the rooftop of your local big box grocery store?

Think of the CO2 emission savings alone as one way of many to demonstrate how unrestricted globalization works against our common good.

Regionalism can lower costs, improve profits and create more local jobs for workers, while improving product freshness and delivery times.

For years I’ve talked-up the benefits of ‘Regionalism‘ where the largest share of goods and services are provided to consumers and business by producers and manufacturers within that economic or geographic region.

It’s not only in regards to fresh produce. With 3D printing and a regional facility ‘the latest thing’ can be manufactured in minutes, regionally, although the online order may have been received thousands of miles away — resulting in faster shipping and larger numbers of (regional) jobs, as opposed to the One Big Factory model, building ‘the latest thing’ in Shenzhen, China.

Of course it works both ways.

For Chinese consumers who want the latest Ford F-150 pickup truck, does it make sense to have one shipped from thousands of miles away in North America, or does it make more sense that Ford builds an assembly plant in China (and hires local workers) and fills orders from there?

I think there is still more growth to be milked out of globalization, but the next logical step is Regionalism which will cut costs, improve profits, and give consumers and business more and better choices. In high unemployment jurisdictions I would expect to see rates fall — perhaps dramatically, while low unemployment jurisdictions may see tiny improvements.

Although I agree with international trade agreements in principle, TPP seems excessively weighted toward corporate interests and not toward consumers or national sovereignty. For that reason I’m against it. The cloud of secrecy surrounding TPP certainly hasn’t helped. And the fact that someone of the rare and high calibre of Elizabeth Warren has doubts about it, tells me everything that I need to know about it. Full stop.

However, any trade agreement that enhances trade flows while enhancing national sovereignty and can show a distinct benefit to consumers and business alike should be aggressively pursued.

For me it isn’t about abandoning globalization, it’s about globalization reaching its full potential without destroying sovereignty, consumer trust, and entire segments of the economy.

It’s more about continuing to grow globalization (whenever that makes sense) and adding regionalism to the mix (wherever that makes more sense) and enhancing national sovereignty.

The day that Apple Computer is building iPhones in factories in every region of the world, that Ford Motor Company has assembly plants in every second country, every piece of clothing is manufactured regionally to the designer’s exact specifications, and most fresh produce is grown within 100 miles of its target consumer, that’s when we will see the maximum benefit from our investment in globalization.

We are where we are in regards to globalization and it has been a qualified success. But the potential of globalization + regionalism is one whole order of magnitude greater.

International law says that it’s illegal and considered an act of war when military aircraft enter another nation’s airspace to kill people there even if those people are members of a heinous terror organization.

It’s a matter of international law. There’s no ambiguity and it’s not under debate by constitutional lawyers anywhere.

Two exceptions are allowed under international law

If a country has a mandate from the United Nations (via Security Council resolution or UN General Assembly resolution) it allows them to enter and engage hostile combatants under the specified terms.

The other exception is when the host country has formally requested foreign intervention inside their borders.

International laws apply equally to every nation. They aren’t like an à la carte dinner menu where you can simply choose which laws you wish to follow

No matter how evil some terror groups are, countries that break international law are just as guilty of breaking laws as those terror groups.

If Western nations send their fighter-bomber aircraft into Syria; a) uninvited by the host government, or; b) with no UN mandate to do so — they are just as guilty of breaching international law as ISIS, perhaps moreso, as nation states know full well the responsibilities of international law and they know that they are bound by those laws. Protestations by government officials to the contrary are irrelevant.

ISIS isn’t a country. Having pretensions at being a country, isn’t the same thing as being a country

ISIS is a terror group, and although bound by the criminal and civil laws of every country they operate in, they’re not a country and are therefore not bound by the same laws that nation states must uphold.

My point is, if we in the West are saying that we’re a great moral force in the world, then we better start acting like it

In no way should Western nations be invading the sovereign airspace of any country with our fighter aircraft, no matter the pretext. So…

Who are we as a people? And do Western nations respect international laws, or not?

When we abide by international laws, we are setting a good example and we should expect to always be treated accordingly by other nations. And if occasion arises when our good example is not reciprocated, then we can claim full legal recourse with support from (all) other law-abiding nations.

When we don’t abide by international laws, but instead rely on the law of the jungle — then we must realize that we will be treated accordingly by the UN, by other institutions, and by other nation states. And by groups like ISIS, not incidentally.

One way or another, we’ll reap what we sow

We should stay on the right side of international law and stop flying into Syrian airspace to bomb civilians — remembering that only some of those civilians are also ISIS-member civilians.

Until then, the West continues to break international law by flying into Syrian airspace and bombing civilians

Let’s not forget that ISIS members are merely civilians who have joined a terror organization — they’re not members of the Syrian Army and we aren’t at war with Syria — therefore, we have no legal right to be there regardless of how evil the ISIS entity is. The anger we feel at their horrific terror attacks doesn’t entitle us to become lawbreakers.

Our best way forward for dealing with ISIS is to operate within Iraq – a country which has formally asked for our assistance

The West can contribute to operations on the ground and in the air in the fight against ISIS within Iraq. We’ve been asked to be there, therefore, we should show up and contribute our best effort.

If we claim that we’re part of a great moral fight in the world, then let’s start by being moral.

How balancing the economy can give us the best work/life balance.
Or is it the other way around?

By legislating job sharing programmes into existence so that every worker is guaranteed a minimum of 25 weeks of paid work every year, we could solve inequality, poverty, and most social ills.

For those of us fortunate enough to be born in a Western nation, life is mostly about balance, and for our elected leaders it’s about how to achieve balance in the wider economy, and about the kinds of policies we’ll need for the future.

Thus far, our political and economic model has evolved. But let’s never forget that it wasn’t designed, it evolved. Big difference. (It might be the best Model T Ford ever built in history, but it’s still a Model T, if you catch my meaning)

And that’s exactly the conversation that we need to have

Here in North America, it requires only 1% of the workers to produce enough food to feed everyone on the continent. Yet, we see major food distribution problems and it’s getting worse.

With regards to agricultural output and distribution, our North American model is the best ever devised but it is far from perfect. And that is my point, instead of waging trillion dollar wars we should have continued to improve our economic model, and especially in regards to the food distribution aspect.

I don’t think that we should be giving food away for free (except in emergency situations) but there are far too many Food Banks in operation for such an affluent society, and there is constant demand for more of them.

Q: And why do we have this particular symptom that I’ve singled-out for discussion?

A: There are far too many idle hands, and it’s because their jobs picked up and went to Asia — a process that began in 1973.

We could put an end to many social ills by employing every worker for a minimum of 6 months per year

By legislating mandatory job-sharing, every worker in North America would be guaranteed a job appropriate to their particular skillset for a minimum of 25 weeks of full time employment, per year.

That means every worker has a full time job for a minimum of 6 months of every year and is then eligible to receive automatic unemployment insurance benefits during their (short) layoff period.

Mandatory job sharing eliminates the need for ‘Welfare’

We know that long-term unemployed individuals eventually turn to welfare in order to be able to eat, have shelter, etc. once their unemployment insurance payments run out.

We also know that long-term unemployment eventually turns into substance abuse, crime, homelessness, etc.

More crime = bigger policing budgets = bigger insurance claims/higher insurance rates = more citizens injured or terrorized by crime, etc… and all of that is just the symptoms of high unemployment and long-term unemployment, migration to welfare, and changes in the thinking of the individuals in such circumstances (long term depression, withdrawing from society, anger, resentment, and more)

But with mandatory job sharing the yearly unemployment rate would be 0% — that is, over the course of the year, every worker will have worked a minimum of 6 months. However, at any given point throughout the year the nominal unemployment rate would settle at 2.5%-3.0%.

With a job (and full unemployment benefits during layoff) long-term unemployment would become a thing of the past.

Keeping some workers in a permanent state of unemployment brings on an OCEAN of troubles

Job sharing is the answer.

By legislating that every healthy worker can have a job for a minimum of 25 weeks per year, we could solve the worst inequality, poverty, other social ills, and dramatically and positively lower crime rates, insurance rates, policing and court costs, and enjoy a safer, more egalitarian society.